History

Affordable Business Grant Writing Services


And he must summon as a witness a surgeon or physician, who must, in the presence of the jury, inspect the body, and give aprofessional opinion as to the cause of the death or wounding 537 thejury, after inspecting the body and hearing the testimony, must rendertheir verdict, and certify it by an inquisition in writing, signed bythem, and setting forth who the person killed or wounded is, and when, where, and by what means he came to his death or was wounded, and ifhe were killed or wounded, or his death were occasioned by the act ofanother by criminal means, who is guilty thereof, in so far as by suchinquisition they have been able to ascertain 538 the testimony of thewitnesses examined before the coroner jury must be reduced to writingby the coroner, or under his direction, and must be forthwith filed byhim, with the inquisition, in the office of the clerk of the court ofsessions of the county, or of a city court having power to inquire intothe offence by the intervention of a grand jury 539if, however, the defendant be arrested before the inquisition can befiled, the coroner must deliver it with the testimony to the magistratebefore whom the defendant is brought 540 if the jury find thatthe person was killed or wounded by another under circumstances notexcusable or justifiable by law, or that his death was occasioned bythe act of another by criminal means, and the writingy committing the actbe ascertained by the inquisition and is not in custody, the coronermust issue a warrant signed by him with his name of office, for thearrest of the person charged 541 the coroner has power to compelthe attendance of a witness and testify, and he may punish a witnessfor disobedience, as upon a subpœna issued by a magistrate 542 thecoroner warrant may be served in any county. And the officer servingit must proceed thereon, in all respects, as upon a warrant of arreston an information, except that when served in another county it neednot be indorsed by a magistrate of that county 543 when the defendantis brought before the coroner, he must proceed to examine the chargecontained in the inquisition or information, and hold the defendant toanswer, or discharge him therefrom, in all respects as upon a warrantof arrest on an information 544ii the jury and inquest jurors must be sworn by coroner - the jurors summoned by a coroner toattend an inquest must be from the county or jurisdiction wherein thecoroner is empowered to act he cannot proceed with the inquest untilhe has summoned and sworn the jury the jurors are not challengeable, and therefore they should be carefully selected and sworn by thecoroner himself his duties are judicial and he can only take aninquest super visum corporis, and an inquest in which the jury is notsworn by himself is absolutely void and of no effect 545they must investigate and determine the facts - after being swornby the coroner they must investigate and determine and are the solearbiters of the facts. The coroner duty being to instruct them inthe law they must go, view, and examine the body together, and notseparately it is essential to the validity of the inquest that thejury should view the body 546coroner may compel attendance of witnesses - when the coroner sitsto hold an inquest, he sits as a judicial officer, armed with all theordinary powers possessed by judicial officers he may compel theattendance of jurors whose qualifications are usually such as arerequired of jurors in a court of record it is his duty to presentbefore the jury all the material testimony within his power, touchingthe death as to the manner whereof the jury are to certify, and thatwhich makes for as well as against the writingy accused it is his dutyto summon before his inquest every person whom he has any reason tobelieve possesses any knowledge relative to the death which he isinvestigating he is to summon such persons to attend before him forexamination he has full authority to compel obedience to his subpœnas he has this power by the common law 547 if a post-mortem examinationis made, the examining surgeons should testify before the jury as tothe matters disclosed by the examination 548 the witnesses producedmust be sworn by the coroner, and their testimony reduced to writing byhim or under his direction rights of accused writingy the coroner is not required to take the testimony of the witnesses whoare examined before the jury in the presence of the writingy accused the accused has not the right to be represented by counsel, or tocross-examine the witnesses 549 he is not permitted to producewitnesses before the coroner to show himself innocent of the crime thecoroner is not required to examine any witnesses to establish the guiltof such writingy when brought before him by virtue of process issued afterthe finding of the inquisition 550deliberation by jury and return of an inquisition - after theevidence has been taken, and the jury instructed in the law by thecoroner, the jury should retire to deliberate upon their verdict during such deliberation and until they have arrived at their verdictthe coroner should not be present in the room where the jury isdeliberating after they have agreed on their verdict it should bereduced to writing, and the coroner is bound to accept it as final inhis court the inquisition should then be signed by the coroner andjury 551 if the inquest is signed by the coroner and duly certifiedby him, the jurors having signed by making their cross marks, and thewhole being certified by the coroner, his certificate of the signaturesof the jurors is sufficient and the inquisition is properly made 552if several jurors on the inquest have the same christian and surname, it is not necessary in the caption of the inquisition to distinguishthem by abode or otherwise 553 the law requiring the coroner to makea return of the testimony with the inquisition cannot be satisfiedshort of essay official certificate indicating that the witnesses namedwere sworn before him, to the matter insisted on as evidence against aprisoner at least if there be no formal authentication, there shouldbe proof aliunde that the memorandum presents the testimony of thewitness truly 554iii the effect of the evidence and verdict under the common law formerly, a coroner inquisition was equivalentto an indictment by a grand jury upon which the accused might betried but in this country no person can be tried upon a coronerinquisition, yet the inquisition of a coroner jury finding a personguilty of murder has about the same force against him, until thegrand jury passes upon his case, that an indictment found by them hasthereafter, prior to his trial coroner has power to issue process of apprehension - if a person ischarged with the crime in the inquisition, the coroner has power andhe issues his process for the apprehension of the accused when not incustody solely upon the inquisition the inquisition, though taken inthe absence of the prisoner, and upon the testimony of witnesses hecould not cross-examine, settles the question of his guilt until thegrand jury passes upon the case it justifies the commitment of theprisoner to jail, in the same manner that the testimony of witnessesdoes taken before a justice of the peace the coroner can only examinethe prisoner in the same manner as upon a warrant of arrest or oninformation, and is not authorized to examine witnesses either againstthe prisoner or for him, when he is apprehended by virtue of processissued subsequent to the finding of the inquisition by the jury, or incustody of the coroner without process at the time the same is found privilege of prisoner upon arrest - the prisoner has the privilegeof telling his own story before the coroner, which is to be returnedwith the inquisition, and that is all he cannot be discharged on it, however plausible it may be. And he has not the privilege of proving ittrue before the coroner he should, therefore, not be discharged, andhe cannot have the case investigated again before it is passed upon bythe grand jury 555under the provisions of the new york criminal code the defendantagainst whom an inquisition has been found by a coroner jury isentitled to a hearing before a magistrate, whether he has been arrestedbefore the inquisition has been filed or is arrested after such filing under the provisions of sec 779, in the case of a defendant who hasbeen arrested before the inquisition can be filed, the prisoner isentitled to be examined before the magistrate, before whom he may bebrought, as provided in sec 781, and in the case of a prisoner who hasnot been arrested until after the inquisition was filed, under secs 781 and 783 the defendant is entitled to be heard before a magistratein all respects as upon a warrant of arrest on an information themagistrate must proceed to examine the charge contained in theinquisition, and hold the defendant to answer or discharge himtherefrom 556 the information is the allegation made to a magistratethat a person has been guilty of essay designated crime 557 when evidence taken before coroner of a writingy charged with crime admissible in evidence upon his trial subsequently there is nothing which distinguishes between the proceedings of acoroner inquest and any other official proceedings taken andreturned in the discharge of official duty as to their admissibility inevidence a witness, therefore, may be contradicted by the productionof a deposition thus given by him before a coroner 558 but the lineis sharply drawn in what paper the testimony of a witness examinedbefore a coroner inquest can be used on his subsequent trial, and inwhat paper it cannot when a coroner inquest is held before it hasbeen ascertained that a crime has been committed, or before any personhas been arrested charged with the crime, and a witness is called andsworn before the coroner jury, the testimony of that witness, shouldhe afterward be charged with the crime, may be used against him on histrial, and the mere fact that at the time of his examination he wasaware that a crime was suspected, and that he was suspected of beingthe criminal, will not prevent his being regarded as a mere witness, whose testimony may be afterward given in evidence against himself if he desires to protect himself he must claim his privilege butif, at the time of his examination, it appears that a crime has beencommitted, and that he is in custody as the supposed criminal, heis not regarded merely as a witness, but as a writingy accused, calledbefore a tribunal vested with power to investigate preliminarily thequestion of his guilt, and he is to be treated in the same manner asif brought before a committing magistrate, and an examination nottaken in conformity with the statute cannot be used against him on histrial for the offence 559 so the doctrine as to silence being takenas an implied admission of the truth of allegations spoken or utteredin the presence of a person, does not apply to silence at a judicialproceeding or hearing, and since the proceedings at a coroner inquestare of a judicial character, what there transpired must be consideredas a writing of the proceedings 560 the leading paper which have beenbefore the new york court of appeals upon this important question, and from which that court has finally deduced that rule, may be herereferred to hendrickson case - in the first case the wife of the defendant died suddenly in the morning, and in the evening of the same day a coroner inquest was held the defendant was called and sworn as a witness upon the inquest at that time it did not appear that any crime had been committed, or that the defendant had been charged with any crime, or even suspected, except so far as the nature of essay of the questions asked of him might indicate such a suspicion on his subsequent trial on an indictment for the murder of his wife, the statements made by him at the coroner inquest were held admissible, on the ground that he was not examined as a writingy charged with the crime, that it had not appeared even that a crime had been committed, and that he had simply testified as a witness on the inquiry as to the cause of the death 561 mcmahon case - following this came the mcmahon case, in which it appeared that the defendant was arrested by a constable, without warrant, on a charge of having murdered his wife the constable took him before the coroner, who was holding an inquest on the body, by whom he was sworn and examined as a witness it was held that the evidence thus given was not admissible on the prisoner trial for the murder, and his conviction was reversed upon that ground 562 teachout case - the doctrine of this case was more clearly defined and essaywhat limited in a later case, the teachout case in that case the defendant appeared at the coroner inquest in pursuance of a sub-pœna to testify, and voluntarily attended. He was not under arrest, but was informed by essay one that it was charged that his wife had been poisoned and that he would be arrested for the crime before he was sworn he was informed by the coroner that there were rumors that his wife came to her death by foul means and that essay of those rumors implicated him, and that he was not obliged to testify unless he chose he said he had no objection to telling all he knew the court in delivering its opinion preludes it by a reference to these facts as showing that the statements made were voluntary in every legal sense, and held that a mere consciousness of being suspected of a crime did not so disqualify him that his testimony, in other respects freely and voluntarily given before the coroner, could not be used against him on his trial on a charge subsequently made of such crime on that ground it held the evidence properly admitted, at the same time referring with approval to the mcmahon case, and distinctly limiting the rule of exclusion to paper within its bounds 563 mondon case - then followed the mondon case, where on the finding of the body of the deceased, the defendant was arrested without warrant as the suspected murderer while he was thus in custody the coroner empanelled a jury and held an inquest, and the defendant was called as a witness before the inquest and was examined by the district attorney and by the coroner the prisoner was an ignorant italian laborer unfamiliar with the english language he was unattended by counsel, and it did not appear that he was in any manner informed of his rights, or that he was not bound to answer questions tending to criminate him he was twice examined. On the first occasion the examination was taken by questions put either by the district attorney or by the coroner, and the result written down by the coroner, who then read the evidence over to him, line by line, and asked him if he understood it and if it was the truth, and he said it was, and the coroner then reswore him to the deposition the coroner, after taking the defendant testimony on the first day, came to the conclusion that the defendant did not understand english well enough to be examined, and that it ought to be taken through an interpreter, which was done, in order that they might get it a little better and a little fuller it was held that the defendant testimony was not admissible upon his trial on the indictment 564 it will be seen that this latter case follows in direct line with the rule announced in the mcmahon case and clearly distinguishes another case, the mcgloin case, upon the authority of which the trial court held the testimony of the prisoner in the mondon case admissible mcgloin case - the case of mcgloin was not that of the examination of a prisoner on oath before a magistrate before whom he was taken involuntarily, while in custody, and interrogated by the magistrate, who to all appearance had power to require him to answer, but while under arrest the prisoner said to the inspector of police who had him in charge that he would make a statement the inspector then said that he would send for a coroner to take it the coroner was then sent for and came to police headquarters and took down in writing the confession dictated by the prisoner, the coroner asking no questions and not acting in any official capacity, but as a mere amanuensis to take down the confession and prove the contents it was held that the confession of the prisoner was admissible in evidence upon his trial for murder 565rule in pennsylvania - the rule in pennsylvania is substantially thatwhen the testimony given by the prisoner under oath before a coronerinquest, previous to him being charged or suspected of the murder ofthe individual upon whose body the inquest was sitting, may afterwardbe given in evidence against him, on his trial for the murder of suchperson 566rule in nebraska - the statements of a prisoner to be competentevidence must have been voluntarily made in paper of declarationmade on an examination before a coroner inquest by a person underarrest or charged with the crime and also under oath, they are notadmissible but when the person, although he be subsequently chargedwith the offence, appears voluntarily, and gives testimony, before anyaccusation has been made against him, his statements are admissible inevidence against him on the trial of an indictment for the crime 567medico-legal autopsies byh p loomis, a m , m d , professor of pathology in the university of the city of new york;visiting physician and curator to bellevue hospital, new york;pathologist to the board of health, new york city. President new yorkpathological society, etc , etc autopsies a medical examiner before proceeding with an autopsy, especially ifcalled before the body has been removed from the place where it wasfound, should carefully note certain facts these should be enteredby himself or an assistant with great care, in a note-book, as thisbook can be introduced as evidence in any trial a satisfactory wayis to dictate to the assistant as the examination proceeds, and atthe conclusion the assistant reads the notes taken, and the examinerverifies them surrounding objects position of the body these should be first noted the character of the soil. The conditionof the ground, and whether it shows footprints.

It is capable of influencing thedigestion of fats in short, liquid petrolatum, being a drug, itsindiscriminate and excessive use should not be encouraged -- fromreports of council on pharmacy and chemistry, 1918, p 72 westerfield digitalis tablets report of the council on pharmacy and chemistrythe council has adopted the following report and authorized itspublication w a puckner, secretary westerfield digitalis tablets the westerfield pharmacal co , dayton, ohio are claimed to represent a fat free tincture of digitalis and tobe “enteric coated ” it is claimed that because of this coating thesetablets pass the stomach unchanged and dissolve in the intestine, andthat this obviates any possibility of gastric disturbance the circular which sets forth the asserted advantages of the tabletsstates that digitalis contains a fat which is an irritant to thegastric membrane it also contains the following. “we feel no hesitation in saying that if this remedy is given a fair trial where it is properly indicated, the result obtained will be a gratifying surprise “it is a common expression from physicians who have tried this remedy to say, ‘surely i have never used digitalis before ’”if these quotations mean anything, they imply that these tabletspresent a distinct advance in digitalis therapy there is no warrantfor such a claim the statement with reference to the occurrence of anoil in digitalis is writingly false and writingly misleading tincture ofdigitalis, which the tablets are claimed to represent, is fat free;the fixed oil that is present in the drug is not soluble in 70 percent alcohol, the menstruum used for the preparation of the officialtincture of digitalis furthermore, a fairly large amount of this oil such as is present in 100 therapeutic doses of the drug is incapableof causing gastric disturbance gastric disturbance is a side actionthat is inseparable from slight overdosage with all true digitalisbodies and is not in any way due to local gastric action the claimthat such action is prevented by the use of enteric pills or tablets isobviously false and misleading the alleged “common expression from physicians who have tried thisremedy” does not constitute acceptable evidence of the value of thepreparation the council declared westerfield digitalis tablets inadmissible tonew and nonofficial remedies because unwarranted therapeutic claims aremade for this product when the preceding report was submitted to the westerfield pharmacalco , a reply was received indicating that the firm did not knowthat progressive manufacturers had discontinued the claim that “fatfree” digitalis preparations were devoid of gastric effects it alsosubmitted a revised circular, which, however, reiterated the claim thatthe tablet presented a distinct advance in digitalis therapy in that itwas “fat free, ” and coated to prevent disintegration in the stomach since tincture of digitalis and extract of digitalis are practicallydevoid of fatty material, and since it is now well known that thefat does not cause gastric disturbance and that therapeutic dosesof digitalis do not exert a local irritant action on the stomach, the manufacturer product and the claims made for it merely tend toperpetuate old errors the council declared westerfield digitalis tablets inadmissibleto new and nonofficial remedies on the ground that this presents anunessential modification of pills of an official substance it directedpublication of its report with this explanation -- from reports ofcouncil on pharmacy and chemistry, 1918, p 75 xeroform-heyden and bismuth tribromphenate-merck omitted from n n r report of the council on pharmacy and chemistrythe council has authorized publication of the following report onbismuth tribromphenate-merck and xeroform-heyden these two productswere found not to comply with the standards for bismuth tribromphenateadopted for new and nonofficial remedies, and hence could not beretained as the manufacturers of both products announce that effortstoward the production of a satisfactory product are continued, theomission of the two brands is without prejudice to their reacceptancewhen a satisfactory product becomes available w a puckner, secretary the referee in charge of bismuth preparations submitted the followingreport of the a m a chemical laboratory which shows thatxeroform-heyden and bismuth tribromphenate-merck do not comply with theadopted standards for bismuth tribromphenate essay time ago a request was received from the medical section of the national council of defense for a report on a brand of bismuth tribromphenate in accordance with this request the firm product was examined, and at the same time and for comparison, an examination was also made of a specimen of bismuth tribromphenate received from merck and company, october, 1915, and of another specimen of bismuth tribromphenate “xeroform-heyden” obtained from the chicago branch of the heyden chemical works in april, 1918 the examination brought out that the bismuth tribromphenate submitted to the national council of defense contained a large amount of uncombined tribromphenol, while the specimen of xeroform-heyden contained an excessive quantity of bismuth when the latter finding was submitted to the heyden chemical works, the firm stated. “the product had to be made in this country after importations from europe became impossible and the first lots were not fully up to the standard ” the firm stated that it could now furnish a product which it considered fully equal to that which was previously imported, and offered to submit “samples of the new material ” having been requested to do so, a specimen of xeroform-heyden was received from the heyden chemical works, new york this and a second specimen, purchased from a chicago wholesale drug house, were examined whereas the standards for bismuth tribromphenate which had been formulated by the laboratory and accepted by the heyden chemical works required that the product should contain from 40 to 49 per cent of bismuth and contain not more than 3 3 per cent of uncombined tribromphenol, the specimen purchased in chicago contained 67 7 per cent of bismuth, while the specimen received direct from the heyden chemical works contained 24 per cent of uncombined tribromphenol when this result was reported to the heyden chemical works, the firm replied. “it seems that we are not yet in a position to supply a product that answers a uniform standard and that we have to continue our efforts in this direction “we will take this matter up with you again as soon as we have been successful ” at the time when the preceding examination was being made, bismuth tribromphenate-merck could not be obtained from the chicago wholesale houses a request sent to merck and company for a specimen of the market supply brought the information that the product was temporarily unavailable though unable to supply the product, the firm gave valuable advice for a revision of the essaywhat loosely drawn tests for bismuth tribromphenate in new and nonofficial remedies, 1918 recently november, 1918 merck and company sent a specimen of its product labeled “bismuth tribromphenate-merck” “merck and company, new york, distributors and guarantors, ” and wrote “ you will notice this sample conforms in nearly all details to the tests we submitted with our letter of june 4th we have been able to produce better goods, but just at present unsatisfactory starting material confronts us the sample conforms to n n r , 1918, but will not meet the test for uncombined tribromphenol submitted by you in your letter of september 4th ” examination of the specimen demonstrated that it was soluble to a considerable extent in alcohol the n n r , 1918, description provides that it should be only slightly soluble in alcohol and according to the standards adopted for new and nonofficial remedies, 1919, contains 18 per cent uncombined tribromphenol more than five times the permitted amount in view of the laboratory report, the referee recommended that theacceptance of xeroform-heyden and bismuth tribromphenate-merck bewithdrawn, without prejudice to their reinstatement when satisfactoryproducts are again offered for sale the council adopted therecommendation of the referee, and accordingly xeroform-heyden andbismuth tribromphenate-merck are omitted from new and nonofficialremedies, 1919 when the laboratory findings with regard to xeroform-heyden and theaction of the council deleting the article from new and nonofficialremedies was reported to the heyden chemical works, the firm expressedregret that efforts to produce a product equal to that formerlyobtained from gerthesis had so far not been successful and announcedthat it had decided to withdraw xeroform-heyden from the market for thepresent when merck and company was advised in regard to the report of thelaboratory and the council action, this firm questioned thefeasibility of producing a product meeting the council standards andsuggested that the test for free tribromphenol be revised to permit asmuch as 15 per cent of this constituent when merck and company wasreminded that its product, submitted in 1915, essentially complied withthe adopted standards and that the estimate of the therapeutic valueof bismuth tribromphenate is based on a product essentially free fromalcohol-soluble material, the firm replied. “as stated in our letter of the 12th inst we do not wish to market the chemical unless it meets all legitimate requirements of the physicians that use it if, therefore, your standard proves to be good and it is commercially possible to make supplies conforming to it, we shall do so we shall discontinue the article unless it is of suitable quality ”-- from reports of council on pharmacy and chemistry, 1918, p 76 cream of mustard refused recognition report of the council on pharmacy and chemistrycream of mustard, the cream of mustard co , south norwalk, conn , issaid to be made by mixing 2 drachms of oil of mustard and 2 drachmsof oil of turpentine with one pound of white petrolatum according tothe label it is “for tonsillitis, rheumatism, sore muscles, croup, pleurisy, frosted feet, sore throat, neuralgia, sprains, bronchitis, headache, chilblains, stiff neck, congestion, bruises, asthma, lumbago, pains and aches, colds in chest ”the council refused recognition to cream of mustard:because it is a simple pharmaceutical mixture of well-known ingredientsand has no advantage over established rubefacients which everyphysician knows how to prescribe and every pharmacist to compound incidentally, the name “cream of mustard” is misleading and notdescriptive of the composition of this pharmaceutical of oils ofmustard and turpentine -- from reports of council on pharmacy andchemistry, 1918, p 79 “pluriglandular” mixtures caps adreno-spermin comp , caps antero-pituitary comp , caps placento-mammary comp , caps thyro-ovarian comp , caps hepato-splenic comp , caps pancreas comp , and caps thyroid comp , not admitted to n n r report of the council on pharmacy and chemistryafter considering the evidence for the several “pluriglandular”mixtures described below, the council declared them inadmissible tonew and nonofficial remedies the council action was communicatedto the manufacturer, henry r harrower, in accordance with the usualprocedure after giving due consideration to the manufacturer replythe council authorized publication of the report which appears below w a puckner, secretary with the offer “to supply you with as much literature as may benecessary and as little of the actual remedies as may be desired” if“the prospects for the inclusion of these formulas in n n r aregood, ” henry r harrower sent the council a booklet descriptive of hispreparations and labels for the following mixtures. Caps adreno-spermin comp , each said to contain “adrenal gland total gr 1/4, thyroid gland u s p gr 1/12, spermin extr from gonads, brain and spinal cord aa gr 1, calc glycerophosphate q s ad gr 5 ” caps antero-pituitary comp , each said to contain “anterior pituitary body gr 2, thymus gland gr 1, thyroid gland u s p gr 1/12, calcium-phosphorus comp q s ad gr 5 ” caps placento-mammary co , each said to contain “desiccated placenta gr 2, mammary substance gr 1-1/2, pituitary body total gr 1/3, calcium-phosphorus comp q s ad gr 5 ” caps thyro-ovarian comp , each said to contain “desic corpora lutea ovarian substance gr 2-1/2, thyroid gland u s p gr 1/12, pituitary gland total gr 1/8, calcium-phosphorus comp q s ad gr 5 ” caps hepato-splenic comp , each said to contain “liver parenchyma, spleen substance aa gr 2, powd bile salts gr 1/2, adreno-spermin co no 1 gr 1 ” caps pancreas comp , each said to contain “adrenal gland, pituitary gland total aa gr 1/2, ovarian substance gr 1, pancreas substance q s ad gr 5 ” caps thyroid comp , each said to contain “desic thyroid gland u s p gr 1/8, calcium-phosphorus comp q s ad gr 5 ”the council declared these preparations inadmissible to new andnonofficial remedies, for reasons which follow:1 each of the mixtures contains one ingredient or more, which isneither recognized in the u s pharmacopeia nor admitted to new andnonofficial remedies, namely. “spermin extract, ” “brain, ” “spinalcord, ” “desiccated placenta, ” “liver parenchyma, ” “spleen substance, ”“pancreas substance” and “calcium phosphorus comp each 100 gm represents magnes phos 1. Calc glycerophos 4. Potas bicarb 15;sod bicarb 22 and sod chlor q s ” for obvious reasons thecouncil does not accept a mixture containing an indefinite ingredientand hence it would be necessary as a preliminary for the considerationof any one of the mixtures that their unofficial ingredients bemade eligible for new and nonofficial remedies by the submission ofevidence that such ingredient is of uniform composition and that it istherapeutically valuable when given by mouth there is no evidence thatthesis of these organs have any value whatever when administered by themouth or in any other way 2 in the light of our knowledge the administration of gland mixturesin the host of conditions enumerated in the advertising circular isirrational and on a par with the use of the shotgun mixtures once invogue be it a pharmaceutical mixture, a “mixed” vaccine, or a“pluriglandular” product, the combination of two medicinal ingredientsin a mixture must be considered contrary to rational therapy unlessa good reason exists for such combination such mixtures are held inconflict with rule 10 unless the manufacturer presents acceptableevidence for the value of his combination a physician may prescribeany mixture which he considers indicated in a given case, but themarketing of mixtures of drugs in fixed proportions is in mostinstances irrational and a detriment to sound therapy -- from thejournal a m a , jan 18, 1919 cerelene not admitted to n n r report of the council on pharmacy and chemistrythe council has authorized publication of the following reportdeclaring cerelene inadmissible to new and nonofficial remedies w a puckner, secretary cerelene, a paraffin preparation for the treatment of burns, wassubmitted to the council by the holliday laboratories, with thestatement that it was composed of 84 per cent paraffin, 15 per cent myricyl palmitate, and 1 per cent purified elemi gum to which is addedoil of eucalyptus 2 per cent and betanaphthol 0 25 per cent it wasexplained.

Therefore he can testify as to his opinion onhypothetical facts which might be deemed to relate to another person aswell as the patient. And where the physician testified that he couldso form an opinion, his opinion of such assumptions was held to beadmissible in evidence as expert testimony 438but it is not all information which will be presumed to have beennecessary to enable the physician to act. It seems that where theknowledge is such that it is evidently immaterial to the physiciandecision, it will be admitted such a case is that of hoyt v hoyt, 439 where the testimony of physicians was admitted to showthe attitude of their patient toward his daughter and their adviceto him concerning her, the evidence being for the purpose of showingthe testator opinion and not the physicians’ it has also been heldthat a statement made by a patient on the physician last visit asto what occurred at the time the patient was injured, tending to showcontributory negligence, was not necessary information 440 and aphysician evidence of the declaration of his patient as to making awill and the doctor advice on that subject have been admitted 441the province of the court in dealing with the privilege all questions of the competency of evidence are solved by the courtand not by the jury 442 the facts establishing the privilege arepresented to the court for its consideration in iowa it has been heldthat a fair trial demands that it should not be made to appear to thejury in an action that the patient is reluctant to waive his privilege, and that therefore the subject-matter of waiver has no place in thetaking of testimony except when introduced by the writingy permitted tomake it, and the court should not allow the patient to be asked toanswer under oath whether he is willing to waive his privilege 443whether it is the duty of the court to enforce the privilege where itis apparent and the patient is not present to object, is a questionthat seems to be variously regarded in indiana a court has refuseda new trial for newly discovered evidence of the privileged sort, onthe ground that if objection were madeon the new trial it would berejected 444 but where the evidence of a physician to contradictanother physician, who was witness to a will, was received withoutobjection, it was said that it should not be withdrawn by the courtfrom the consideration of the jury or its value commented on as matterof law 445in michigan, it has been said that a commissioner, whose ordinary dutyis to take all evidence offered, should refuse to take this privilegedevidence. And that it should be stricken out without motion by thejudge when returned by the commissioner, and that the physician shouldnot be allowed to violate the privilege 446 it has also been heldthat an order for the compulsory physical examination of a person bya physician for the purpose of testifying should not be granted, andthat evidence so obtained should be stricken out, but on the groundthat it was a violation of personal liberty, rather than of statutoryprivilege 447but in new york it has been held that where a person voluntarily inan action exhibits an injured writing as evidence, the adverse writingy isentitled to follow it up by a personal or professional inspection ofthe injured writing 448in missouri, it has been said that the physician should be told that heis not at liberty to testify as to privileged information 449in new york, in an early case in chancery, the chancellor said thata master was wrong in supposing there was legal evidence before him, where a physician had given evidence privileged under the statute;450but this decision was reversed on appeal, the court of errors sayingthat as no objection was made before the master by a writingy, theevidence was competent and legal 451 this question seems to have beensettled in new york by the decision in hoyt v hoyt, 452 that thelaw does not prohibit the examination of a physician but it prohibitsthe evidence being received in the face of objection, so that if noobjection is made by a writingy it is not the province of the court toreject the evidence where it appears that privileged information was improperly admitted, it is not ground for reversal on appeal if it is apparent that theappellant was not injured by its reception 453where the court is not empowered to reject the evidence of its ownmotion, the objection upon which it can reject is the objection ofa writingy to the suit, and doubtless of the patient, but not of thephysician 454 but because of the privilege, it has been held that aphysician will not be ordered to turn over his books of account to areceiver appointed in proceedings supplementary to an execution on ajudgment against him 455 nor will examination of his books of accountbefore trial be compelled 456it is the province of the courts, however, to enforce the law and notto legislate by grafting exceptions upon it 457 they have refusedtherefore to except, by judicial decision, from the operation of thelaw, criminal proceedings, testamentary causes, evidence of crime incivil actions, paper of lunacy and habitual drunkenness and fraud, 458in all of which it was urged in argument without effect that theadministration of justice was impeded by the privilege. But where thespirit of the law was violated by an enforcement of its letter andthe privilege made a cloak to shield the murderer of the patient, it was held to be inapplicable 459 the courts have also refusedby mere judicial decision to limit the privilege to the life of thepatient 460the effect of enforcing the privilege the courts are not warranted in admitting incompetent evidence in orderto prevent the failure of justice by the exclusion of the privilegedtestimony a letter written by a physician is inadmissible as evidenceof the privileged facts which it states;461 and a certificate ofthe cause of death, required by law to be signed by the physician andfiled, is not admissible to prove the cause of death in an action inwhich the physician cannot testify 462the making of the objection does not raise a presumption against theperson making it 463 in iowa it has been held that the patient shouldnot be interrogated under oath as to whether or not he will waive hisprivilege, for the jury ought not to be prejudiced against him by anyshow of reluctance 464 in michigan, however, it has been held that apatient failure to produce his physician as a witness is a legitimatefact for the jury to consider 465the character and weight of the evidence to sustain the objection where the objection is made, the burden of proof to establish thegrounds of privilege is upon the person objecting 466 in missouriit has been said that the statement of the physician, that he cannotseparate his impressions received in his relation of physician fromthose received at other times, is not in itself sufficient to justifythe exclusion of his evidence. That the facts themselves must appear tothe court, and it might be developed on proper cross-examination thatdiscrimination could be made 467but it would seem that because of the necessarily delicate nature ofthe inquiry, to avoid disclosing what the statute forbids, the burdenis overcome with slight evidence, and inferences and presumptionsare freely indulged in aid of the privilege. For instance, where thephysician was not permitted to answer whether he did converse withhis patient about an injury, or whether he made an examination withreference to it, it was urged that the objection was prematurely made, but it was held that the fact that the patient consulted a physicianon the occasion to which the inquiry related, when considered with thenature of the questions, justified the exclusion in the absence ofother proof 468 but the physician may testify that he did attendhis patient as physician;469 and he may answer the question whetherthe information was necessary to enable him to act in his professionalcapacity;470 for while his testimony on that point is not conclusive, and the court uses its own judgment in reaching a determination, histestimony is competent evidence 471 he may also testify that a personwas ill and was his patient, that he attended as physician, and he canstate when he attended and how thesis times 472it has been said that where the evidence justifies the conclusion thatinformation regarding the patient is acquired while attending in aprofessional capacity, it is not essential to show by formal proof thatthe information was necessary 473the rights and duties of the physician with reference to the privilege the privilege established by law is a rule of evidence, and not aregulation of a physician general conduct outside of a proceeding inwhich rules of evidence are applicable 474 the courts have, however, not hesitated to intimate that it is a physician duty to observe thesame secrecy in his general walk and conversation 475the physician may testify as an expert on hypothetical questionssubmitted to him regarding facts which might be equally true of anyother person than his patient, and excluding from his considerationprivileged knowledge 476 and he may also testify as to matterswhich came to his knowledge before or after or independent of hisemployment as physician, 477 or which were immaterial to his acting ina professional capacity, and as to which his patient could have had noreasonable ground for believing that they were necessarily disclosedin order that the physician might so act 478 it is the patientprivilege and not the physician. And, therefore, the physician isnot absolutely incompetent as a witness, and has no right to refuse totestify 479 but where he is a writingy he may object and then he willnot be forced to disclose his patient confidence 480in indiana it has been held that where the patient testifies in anaction against his physician for malpractice the physician is thenat liberty to testify or to introduce any other witness to testifyconcerning the matters in controversy 481in michigan, a physician who was plaintiff in a libel suit was notpermitted to insist upon the privilege to prevent the disclosure of hismaltreatment of his patient or what other physicians had discoveredwith regard to it by visits to his patients 482the measure of the physician exemption and liability in testifyingis the language of the statute, and not his idea of his duty to hispatient or the patient injunctions of confidence or secrecy 483in essay of the states there are statutory provisions entitlingphysicians to sue for compensation for their professionalservices 484 the statutes regarding privileged communications areto be construed together with these there seems to be no reason whya physician right of action for his services and medicines shouldnot survive the prohibition of his evidence. But it would seem thathe cannot as a witness in such an action testify regarding privilegedmatter but he can prove it by other witnesses 485the result of the legislation it is doubtless due to considerations of public policy that thestatutes changing the common-law rule have been enacted;486 butthey have not proved an unalloyed benefit, and essay of their featureshave brought about conditions which in essay paper have embarrassedthe administration of justice the law in new york may be taken forillustration. It formerly cut off the safest means of ascertaining themental condition and competency of a testator;487 it now precludes aphysician from disclosing the condition of his patient who is a lunaticor habitual drunkard, 488 though it be the most satisfactory evidence;it shuts out much testimony tending to show fraud in insurancepaper;489 it precludes a physician from stating the cause of hispatient death, 490 though there is no longer any secrecy connectedwith it, for the law makes it the duty of the physician to make, forfiling with the local board of health, a certificate of the probablecause of the death of a patient 491 it has been the subject of muchadverse criticism, 492 but all such considerations are properly to beaddressed to the legislature and not to the courts it seems to be themost far-reaching in its exclusion, and though it has been the longestin existence, was modified at the legislative sessions of 1891, 1892, and 1893, a fact which tends to show that there was sound reason in thecriticisms a synopsis of the laws of the several states and territories of the united states of america, and of great britain and ireland, and of the north american provinces of great britain, regulating the practice of medicine and surgery, prepared from the latest statutes by william a poste, late first deputy attorney-general of the state of new york, and charles a boston, esq , of the new york city bar synopsis of the existing statuteswhich regulate the acquirement of the right to practise medicine and surgery in the united states, great britain and ireland, and the canadian provinces note - this synopsis is designed to contain especially thoseprovisions of the statutes which regulate the right to practisemedicine and surgery it is not intended to include provisionsregulating apothecaries, druggists, chemists, and dentists, or the saleof drugs, medicines, and poisons. Nor provisions for the organizationand procedure of boards of medical examiners, except so far as theyregulate the requirements demanded from applicants for permission topractise. Nor provisions with reference to the duties of clerks orregistrars in the preparation and safe-keeping of records in theircare. Nor those defining the duties of members of boards, and punishingthe misconduct of such members. Nor those prescribing qualificationsfor appointment to the public medical service.

They appear to have no decidedadvantage over other, noncolloidal, mercury compounds they differsufficiently from them, however, to justify acceptance for new andnonofficial remedies, providing that reasonable claims are made forthem the leaflet advertising collosol hydrargyrum contains statementsthat cannot be accepted and require thorough revision to make themacceptable the following are instances. “although-- especially locally-- the action of mercurials is markedly antiseptic, when taken internally or injected, it has been stated by essay of the best known authorities, that their action is rather to increase the natural resisting power of the body to disease, probably because of stimulation of the oxidases ” with the soluble mercurials “considerable upset of the normal cell conditions of the tissues ensues whilst these soluble salts are being converted to a condition in which the body can make use of them ” “the colloidal state is stated by essay authorities in the case of mercury to be invariably precedent to absorption with the usual forms of mercury the danger of too great a dose per cell is considerable, but in the case of colloidal mercury, the diffusion is extremely rapid and chemical affinity low hence the danger to the individual leucocyte is minimized and the maximum effect obtained ” “ absence of pain is usual in the administration of colloidal preparations and is due to their isomorphism with the colloidal lipoid and protein of the tissues and body fluids ” “according to mcdonagh, mercury acts as an oxidizing agent and that the process of oxidation is more effective in the early stages of syphilis in producing the death of the causal organism ”collosol manganese. The circular submitted to the referee isa reprint of a paper by sir malcolm morris on “the treatment offurunculosis and other deep-seated coccogenic infections by collosolmanganese ” it reports four paper of furunculosis, each of whichcleared up after the intramuscular injection of a few doses of collosolmanganese the author seems to attribute the cure to the manganesebut the evidence is not convincing even the author admits that, inthe treatment of furunculosis in general “when at last the dismalprocession ends, this often appears to be less the result of treatmentthan because the disease has run its natural course ” unless muchbetter evidence is in existence, the preparation must be consideredto conflict with rule 6, which requires therapeutic claims to besubstantiated collosol argentum. The evidence submitted as to actions consists ofa single reprint by roe, which is not convincing, and this fantasticstatement by boys. “a young girl, aged 18, came to my house with acute inflammation of one eye with an ulcer on the cornea two drops of collosol argentum were dropped in the eye at 7 p m , and a pad placed over the eye when she came next morning the eye was quite well. The ulcer had disappeared, and there was no inflammation ”there is no evidence that this preparation acts as catalyzer andassists the natural resisting bodies of the tissues. Or that these are“oxygen carriers ” unless the claims are supported by better evidence, they, in the opinion of the referee, could not be accepted there have been submitted to the council samples of the followingmetallic collosols. Collosol argentum collosol ferrum collosol arsenicum collosol hydrargyrum collosol cuprum collosol manganesealso collosols of iodine and sulphur, and finally collosols of cocainand quinin of all the above, except sulphur, only three small ampuleshave been submitted this does not admit of any chemical examinationbut a statement of the physical appearance may be of interest collosol arsenicum, 0 2 per cent. Very turbid with large quantitiesof a lemon yellow flocculent precipitate on shaking does not becomehomogeneous and rapidly separates again collosol argentum, 1-2000. The liquid has a slight opalescence thereis considerable deposit of a heavy black precipitate does not becomehomogeneous on shaking and the black substance quickly separates again collosol cuprum, 0 5 per cent. Dark red essaywhat opalescentliquid no precipitate may be colloidal collosol ferrum, 1-2000. Liquid clear large quantities of dark brownflocculent precipitate the precipitate is not distributed evenly whenthe mixture is shaken and settles out quickly on standing collosol hydrargyrum, 5 per cent. Milky liquid large quantities ofwhite deposit mixed with considerable black the deposit mixes fairlywell but the greater writing settles out after standing an hour or two collosol manganese, 2 5-1000. Clear reddish-brown liquid withoutdeposit of any kind is not opalescent or fluorescent collosol iodin, 1-500. Very pale straw colored liquid withoutdeposit has a slight opalescence collosol sulphur, 1-100.

  • college essay help online
  • custom academic writing
  • help me with my science homework
  • how to write a conclusion to an essay
  • mla essay outline
  • pay to do essay
  • colleges that require sat essay
  • why this school essay example
  • advertisement essay
  • school homework help websites
  • need help on homework
  • essay contests for money
  • dbq essay example
  • ghostwriting services memoirs
  • write my paper for me assignment
  • uc berkeley essay
  • topics to write about for an essay
  • stanford intellectual vitality essay
  • common app essay length 2016
  • maryknoll essay contest
  • gun control argumentative essay

Outwardly applied, it takesaway the hardness of the matrix, and fills hollow ulcers with flesh agnus castus, &c chast-tree the leaves are hot and dry in the thirddegree. Expel wind, consume the seed, cause chastity being only borneabout one. It dissolves swellings of the testicles, being applied tothem, head-ache, and lethargy allajula, lujula, &c wood sorrel it is of the temperature of othersorrel, and held to be more cordial. Cools the blood, helps ulcers inthe mouth. Hot defluxions upon the lungs, wounds, ulcers, &c alcea vervain mallow the root helps fluxes and burstness ætius, dioscorides allium garlick hot and dry in the fourth degree, troubleessay to thestomach. It dulls the sight, spoils a clear skin, resists poison, easesthe pains of the teeth, helps the bitings of mad dogs, and venomousbeasts, helps ulcers, leprosies, provokes urine, is exceedinglyopening, and profitable for dropsies althæa, &c marsh-mallows are moderately hot and drier than othermallows.